Still No BTP Product Differentiation

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/jim-davidson-why-two-libertarian-parties-are-better-than-one

George Donnelly, I'll leave it to our readers to decide for themselves whether the BTP should somehow be exempt from some gentle satire about BTP chair tenure from lil' ole me in a thread where the the BTP's immediate past chair has hurled the most boorish and vicious insults at the LP ("corrupt vermin") and at me ("scum").  I guess that gentle satire about BTP chair tenure "discredits" me, but Davidson calling the LP leadership "corrupt vermin" doesn't "discredit" him.  Unless you're willing to say you expect more from me than from your immediate ex-chair, then this asymmetry in your chiding doesn't credit you.

Thank you for not trying to defend your claim that I am the one "making" war on Davidson.  It's equally indefensible to suggest that in defending myself from epithets like "scum" and "enthusiast" for state murder, I'm somehow operating on the same ethical plane as he.  "It takes two for war", but it also takes two for an act of self-defense.

In saying that the BTP is characterized by mud-slinging, I wasn't claiming that anyone else besides Davidson had thrown any mud at me in this thread.  I'm not bringing in grievances from elsewhere, I'm just trying to fit in with the local Romans, whose customs were exhibited during the Florida disaffiliation teapot tempest.

Let-em-join-another-party is a dodge you could use to evade any criticism of the BTP.  The fact remains that the BTP's founder did indeed not trust its membership with the power to change the party's platform.  If it wasn't a matter of trust -- in the wake of the Portland platform massacre, no less -- then do you think it was just some play by Knapp for eternal platform authorship credit?

LP spokesman Andrew Davis wrote of "the recent Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and independent party endorsements of a quartet of issues compiled by Republican Congressman Ron Paul".  It would be specious to suggest that the BTP's endorsement of the Paul/Baldwin/Nader/McKinney/Barr statement differentiates the BTP from the LP in the marketplace of ideas.  I'd love it if anybody from the BTP could explain to me precisely how in the marketplace of ideas the BTP is offering any disagreement with principles in the platform of the Party of Principle.